Different versions of same part in an assembly?

[rob]

I have a part with a three-value multi-value parameter.

Is there a way to have three instances of this part in an assembly, each instance with the different parameter value?

And the kicker...I want to update the multi-value parameter values on the fly with iLogic.

Is this possible?

[CamperUnhappy]

I don't think you're going to be able to do this with just a regular part.  It seems like you're going to have to use an iPart or perhaps 3 separate parts that reference a master part or an excel document.

[johnsonshiue]

Hi Rob,

I believe you are asking for Flexible Part. No, Inventor does not support one part with indefinite geometry definition at the moment. Please read my reply to the following thread.

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/inventor-forum/flexible-parts/td-p/9282106

Many thanks!

[rob]

Okay.  Is there a way to hide or show different bodies in a multi-body part, same application as above (three instances of a part in an assembly, each showing or hiding different bodies)?

[johnsonshiue]

Hi! Yes, you can do that. In the part file, create different Design Views and hide the unneeded bodies. Then in the assembly, activate each Design View.

But, the mass proper will be wrong. Also the BOM may not be correct. Could you elaborate why you want to do that?

Many thanks!

[rob]

If I can't have three differently configured instances of the same component in an assembly, I can achieve the visual result by duplicating the features with the part three times and just showing the ones I want for each representation.

I don't want three parts where one will do...less management.  In this particular case I'm not concerned with mass information etc, just need visual only.  I'll be using virtual parts to drive my BOMs.

[IgorMir]

And what's wrong with using iParts? From what you have described it looks like the way to go.

Cheers,

Igor.

---

@rob wrote:

If I can't have three differently configured instances of the same component in an assembly, I can achieve the visual result by duplicating the features with the part three times and just showing the ones I want for each representation.

I don't want three parts where one will do...less management.  In this particular case I'm not concerned with mass information etc, just need visual only.  I'll be using virtual parts to drive my BOMs.

---

[Anonymous]

I would make 3 instances and place and constraint the parts using ilogic and removing the other 2.

So if your partlength can be 20, 50 or 80 the code would be:

Select PartLength
	Case 20
		Dim componentA = Components.Add("part1", "C:\Users\folder\folder\part1.ipt", position := Nothing, grounded := False, visible := True, appearance := Nothing)
		Components.Delete("part2")
		Components.Delete("part3")
	Case 50
		Dim componentA = Components.Add("part2", "C:\Users\folder\folder\part2.ipt", position := Nothing, grounded := False, visible := True, appearance := Nothing)
		Components.Delete("part1")
		Components.Delete("part3")
	Case 80
		Dim componentA = Components.Add("part3", "C:\Users\folder\folder\part3.ipt", position := Nothing, grounded := False, visible := True, appearance := Nothing)
		Components.Delete("part1")
		Components.Delete("part2")
End Select

[johnsonshiue]

Hi Igor,

Rob does not want to deal with multiple files. iPart still requires multiple member files. He wants everything in one file, which is what AltReps project is about.

Many thanks!

[IgorMir]

Hi Johnson,

Since Rob didn't provide any files of his own to look at - it is a touch confusing - what does he want? Using different view representations will still require three (in his case) instances of the part in assembly. And on a part level - he will need to create three view reps to handle the task. One way or another - there is some work involved and saving of time is non existent in any a case. But what do i know? 😁

Cheers,

Igor.

[rob]

If you think its a touch confusing, imagine trying to explain the application in words when discussing proprietary products...much less providing files.  Then, when I attach images to these posts, it complains about html and wipes out my attempt.  But I'll try...

We design restaurant booth layouts; these layouts can snake all over a restaurant, with curved corners, straight sections, hard corners, internal and external corners, etc.  So upholstered seat squabs on carcase sub-assemblies.

I can create the seat squabs easily enough with sweeps, and do so all from a master part that contains the elevation profiles as blocks.  But the carcases are multibody parts with spines and rails.  One type of part builds a straight carcase with a pattern of spines connected by several rails.  Another type of part builds a curved carcase with a radial pattern of spines, connected by curved rails.

I could have a straight run, then a curve corner, then a different length straight run, then another curve of different radius and angle, then another different length straight run.  My layout model allows me to adjust the lengths, angles, and radii, and parameters also set the spine spacing and maximum carcase lengths etc.

I want to minimize the number of files.  True, I have to solve the problem either way...but one way gives me one straight carcase model used three times, and one curved carcase model used twice: two parts. Your way gives me five parts...

[rob]

You still wind up with part1, part2, and part3, right?  Please see my explanation to Igor for more info, thanks!

[rob]

Images below.

[IgorMir]

Well Rob, it seems like you have worked out the design process which suits your needs already. Just stick with that. Why do you need anything else in your line of work? As for me - I would handle the modelling (as per pictures you have provided) using iParts and iAssemblies. Since they are not the same assemblies after all. They have different configurations while using the same parts. Our friend Johnson is pushing iLogic, of course, but I doubt that there will be lesser work (and files) to document what you need with iLogic either.

Cheers,

Igor.

[rob]

Hi Igor:  I'm not opposed to iParts, just don't have any experience with them yet.  I have no idea how flexible or inflexible they are to our needs.

But I don't see Johnson pushing iLogic anywhere, pretty sure that was another user.  And I'm not using iLogic to solve this issue.  I'd quite prefer something like a SolidWorks part configuration...which might be what an iPart is, not sure.

What I do need is flexibility: the ability to push out a lot of variations from a single model (and form) quickly.  A standard iPart doesn't look suitable; possibly a custom one is.  I'll look into it.

[IgorMir]

Hi Rob;

I was just kidding about Johnson's iLogic input. Simply - whenever I mention iParts - he seconds my posts with offering iLogic. 😄 But there is nothing wrong with it, mind you!
I am more familiar with iParts and iAssemblies. In my line of work there yet to be a need for using iLogic. Come to think of it - the companies I have been dealing with here, in Western Australia - they are struggling to embrace a concept of fully constrained sketches, let alone anything beyond that. But maybe I just got unlucky. I am sure - there are some ones on advance level. I haven't found them yet.

If you want your assembly to be as flexible as Donald Duck in Disney's cartoons - I don't think you will get much luck with any an engineering software out there. So, it is up to you to opt for either iParts or iLogic passes. You can go for both, of course. But mind you - non of them will by mastered overnight.

Best of luck;

Igor.

---

@rob wrote:

Hi Igor:  I'm not opposed to iParts, just don't have any experience with them yet.  I have no idea how flexible or inflexible they are to our needs.

But I don't see Johnson pushing iLogic anywhere, pretty sure that was another user.  And I'm not using iLogic to solve this issue.  I'd quite prefer something like a SolidWorks part configuration...which might be what an iPart is, not sure.

What I do need is flexibility: the ability to push out a lot of variations from a single model (and form) quickly.  A standard iPart doesn't look suitable; possibly a custom one is.  I'll look into it.

---

[rob]

Maybe I'll post a screencast when finished.  Nearly there, and does what I want it too, quickly.  Has taken a two hour job down to five minutes...with iLogic controlling configurable parts of the design.

We also run Vault here, good in many ways, bad in some.  How is iPart/Assembly performance with Vault?

[rob]

Hi Johnson:  I have tried this approach; it appears that when a part with a view representation is patterned, the patterned instances lose that selection.  i.e. if I have views "A" "B" and "C" with "A" selected for the initial instance, then pattern that instance, the following instances revert to "Master" regardless of whether Associative is ticked or not.

This does not seem right to me: the view representation of the initial instance should be preserved.  What am I missing?

[johnsonshiue]

Hi Rob,

The behavior does sound wrong to me. Could you share the files exhibiting the behavior with me directly (johnson.shiue@autodesk.com)? I would like to understand it better.

Many thanks!

[rob]

Files sent, thanks.  See also https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/inventor-forum/component-pattern-ignores-set-representation-in-fx/m-p...  as I believe this is possibly the same/related issue.